Search

Background: To assess the cost-effectiveness of new treatments in Germany, the efficiency frontier (EF) method has been developed. We compared the cost-effectiveness analysis using international standards and the German methodology, using the heart failure drug sacubitril/valsartan as an example., Methods: A previously developed Markov model was adapted to include 4 treatment options: no treatment, enalapril, candesartan, and sacubitril/valsartan. The internationally used incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated, as well as cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Additionally, EFs, net monetary benefits (NMBs), and price-acceptability curves were created according to German guidelines. All analyses were performed from the perspective of the German Statutory Health Insurance., Results: The base-case ICER for sacubitril/valsartan compared to enalapril is €19  300/quality-adjusted life-year. On the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve, sacubitril/valsartan is most likely to be cost-effective, out of all included comparators, from a hypothetical willingness-to-pay threshold of €18 250/quality-adjusted life-year onward. No EF could be constructed for the base case. Taking the uncertainty of the input parameters into account for the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, a NMB of around -€14 000 was calculated, depending on the outcome considered, with the NMB being zero at a daily price for sacubitril/valsartan ranging from €1.52 to €1.67., Conclusion: We calculated an ICER for Germany, comparable to previously published cost-effectiveness analyses for Europe, which widely concluded sacubitril/valsartan to be cost-effective. Using the German EF approach, a considerable discount needs to be applied before sacubitril/valsartan can be considered cost-effective., (Copyright © 2019 ISPOR–The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Prenatal health care is pivotal in providing adequate prevention and care to pregnant women., Aim: We examined the determinants of inadequate prenatal health care utilisation by low-risk women in primary midwifery-led care in the Netherlands., Methods: We used longitudinal data from the population-based DELIVER study with 20 midwifery practices across the Netherlands in 2009 and 2010 as the experimental setting. The participants were 3070 pregnant women starting pregnancy care in primary midwifery care., Findings: We collected patient-reported data on potential determinants of prenatal care utilisation derived from the Andersen model. Prenatal health care utilisation was measured by a revised version of the Kotelchuck Index, which measures a combination of care entry and number of visits. Low-risk pregnant women (not referred during pregnancy) were more likely to use prenatal care inadequately if they intended to deliver at a hospital, if they did not use folic acid adequately periconceptionally, or if they were exposed to cigarette smoke during pregnancy. Among those who were referred to secondary care, women reporting a chronic illnesses or disabilities, and women who did not use folic acid periconceptionally were more likely to make inadequate use of prenatal care., Conclusion: Inadequate prenatal health care use in primary midwifery care is more likely in specific groups, and the risk groups differ when women are referred to secondary care. The findings suggest routes that can target interventions to women who are at risk of not adequately using prenatal prevention and care services., (Copyright © 2015 Australian College of Midwives. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)